A more regional approach to the climate problem has been promoted over the last two to three years, with the result being that, in Copenhagen, regions will be participating for the first time in the United Nations climate conference. Luc Van den Brande, president of the Committee of the Regions, describes the long-term effort under way for the past few years and its objectives.

Why and how has the regional approach been promoted?

There are different reasons. Regions, municipalities and cities are the first to be faced with the problems and to suffer their costs and consequences. This is true for employment, immigration and naturally for everything related to climate change. Three factors came into play. First, cities and regions have become aware of the necessity of moving towards a ‘green’ regional economy. So it is normal for them to make themselves heard since they are the first to be confronted with the problems. Second, there is a real openness to sharing experiences and good/bad practices, as seen in the recent Covenant of Mayors which, without any institutional intervention, puts this sharing into practice. Third, proximity and awareness that it is in cities and regions that the problems are most concentrated: density of population and emissions, traffic congestion, etc. I would add, to explain the emergence of an approach structured more on regions, the opinions issued by the Committee of the Regions and the fact that the costs and consequences of climate change vary from one region to the next. Depending on the situation, nearly 170 million Europeans (more than one third of the EU’s population) are seeing the impact of climate change. It is clear that the Southern and Eastern European regions are much more affected than the northern ones, which is why it is important to develop specific approaches like the one proposed for the Baltic Sea.

Why did it take so long to react? Kyoto was more than ten years ago…

That is a question we must ask ourselves. First there was global awareness and the fact that the phenomenon was for too long measured only at the level of Europe, the United States or other continents. I can only say that with the programmes in place, awareness developed – admittedly perhaps too late – that success would only be possible by working with cities and regions. That was not at all the case for the Kyoto discussions and the process that followed. As in many policies, including Europe’s, it was thought that everything could be done, that solutions would be found and targets met by deciding everything centrally. I think there has been an evolution in this regard. I told President Barroso and Commissioner Piebalgs that we supported all their activities; such as the 20-20-20 targets, but that to be successful, they would have to involve cities and regions. Although it is a bit late, I am glad that the message has been heard. Things have become easier in the past two to three years. At institutional level, the Committee of the Regions has issued several opinions on this theme since 2007-2008 illustrating this awareness. This is not an institutional issue, however. What counts are results. And without cities and regions there will be no results.

Another interesting point is that 1,000 mayors in the United States have teamed up to declare that they [the cities] have to be involved in the effort. Coincidentally – and to our advantage – this happened just as 700 European mayors signed up to the covenant based on a similar approach. So the movement is not limited to Europe but is worldwide. The fact is, though, that there is a gap between what happened ten to 15 years ago and what has been going on for the past two to three years. This is a criticism to be addressed to Europe, which for too long has believed that solutions can always be worked out through a centralised approach. I am absolutely convinced that common targets are needed. That is obvious and is Europe’s added value. But they can only be successfully implemented through partnerships with every level of decision-making and responsibility. This is true not just for the climate but also for all policies and for the Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth. We agree that common objectives are needed but trying to implement them the same way from Kiruna in the North of Sweden to Sicily is totally unrealistic.

The partnerships being considered are between the EU and member states. Have you discussed them with the Commission?

Yes. We sponsored a colloquium, on 22 September in Bruges, on the white paper on multilevel governance [Published by the Committee of the Regions, on 6 June 2009, it invites the EU institutions and member states to involve regional and local authorities more closely in the development and implementation of EU policies - Ed]. In our view, this is not just a concept, but a new way of seeing things for every area of application or activity. It is an illusion to believe that there are exclusive competences. Even where there are, the exclusive competence at one level of decision making meets the so-called exclusive competence of another level of decision making. Our message is consequently ‘Europe through partnership’ and we will do what we can with the European Parliament and other organisations to illustrate it through concrete situations. Progress is being made. Europe is a machine, a ship and the history of Europe is written step by step.

Are EU member states prepared to delegate powers?

Every level of governance believes that it has all the solutions to hand. But, and I think this is important for both effectiveness and the overall framework, little by little we are realising that we have to be open to partnerships with cities and regions through concrete actions. Take the example of the Lisbon strategy platform. We see that the states working on the basis of regional programmes obtain better results than those working on a centralised basis. The challenge of Copenhagen, to be very concrete, is that cities and regions will be involved. There must be a common approach to objectives, but with implementation based on infra levels. I think that the European Covenant of Mayors is a tangible and very concrete way of demonstrating that this is necessary. It’s a question of reliability. It’s not just about signing the covenant. There is a real commitment to achieve results and, if this commitment is not respected, to withdraw from the covenant. As to whether countries are ‘open’ to it, I think so - much more than a few years ago. If the Union and the states intend to succeed, they now know that it will only be possible with cities and regions. During the Open Days, the Vice-President of the US Conference of Mayors, Elizabeth B. Kautz, will address the plenary. One of the ideas she will present is that the Copenhagen conference be used to establish a connection between the European Covenant of Mayors and the American Conference of Mayors. It remains to be seen what response states will make and how open they will be to the idea. It is our duty and responsibility to work on that. We are trying to act not only through adoption of opinions but more directly, through actions. That is much more credible and more necessary than texts because it demonstrates our commitment and capacity to cooperate. It would be absurd for the EU and member states not to use this opportunity to attain our objectives by involving cities and regions. We will be part of the EU delegation and we will have to do our job. This is an evolution. As to whether we have already managed to secure a place for cities and regions, we’ll see. I don’t have a crystal ball.

Will you be able to participate directly in the negotiations?

That is what we are negotiating now. Our inclusion in the European delegation via the Commission is confirmed. That is important. But there is no question of this being just symbolic participation. We have to be able to play a role that is not excessive but is enough to show that the EU is also about sharing responsibilities and competences. It has been agreed that we will be involved in the work. That is an important first step, because we have to speak with a single voice, but the practical arrangements are being discussed. We also intend to organise initiatives in the wings of the conference, like the one I just mentioned of establishing ties between the US Conference of Mayors and the EU Covenant of Mayors.

It will also be important for the role of the infranational powers to be set out in the texts and in the general approach. I don’t have a crystal ball here either but we will try to ensure that the texts refer to it in the methodology, the way of acting and going beyond Copenhagen in day-to-day work. That is the post-Copenhagen challenge.

About the texts, is it agreed at United Nations level that such a mention is necessary?

Nothing can be taken for granted but it will be absolutely necessary and we will insist on a reference in the texts. Texts are one thing but we need a reference as a basis for further action after Copenhagen. It will not be enough for this to remain tacit or understood in the overall framework. We know that 70% of the problems emerge at the local level in the broad sense of the term. So this has to be taken into account. It would be absurd and much more than negligence not to do so.

What will this contribute in practical terms on the ground?

It will contribute greater motivation and recognition for all those who are already dealing with this problem of climate change. It will be a good sign. It will also be – and must be – a reference for beyond Copenhagen in the sense that it may be referred to for organising follow up steps. We therefore want to be a stakeholder in defining these. It must also be a lever for implementing an integrated policy at European level. It is obvious that we cannot isolate the climate change problem. Action in the wake of Copenhagen will have to be integrated into all policies, in particular if we want real territorial cohesion. I insist: the next Cohesion Policy will have to integrate what we are trying to do in Copenhagen and beyond. We will only advance with a Europe of partnerships, by accepting one another. It will be very important to have a reference to sub-national powers in the Copenhagen texts and we are looking for allies to demonstrate that what applies to Europe – in the broad sense – also applies to other continents.

The cities and regions have become aware of the necessity of moving towards a ‘green’ regional economy